Andrew Richards
Forum Replies Created
-
[Bob Zelin] “No Edit Share support (or any other shared storage support)
No support of Apple XSAN”Bob,
While you can’t host Event or Project Libraries on shared storage (yet), there is nothing stopping you from unchecking the box for “Copy files to Final Cut Events folder” and linking to media on shared storage by importing it into an Event. This obviously means you can’t ingest to shared storage with FCPX, but then again it isn’t very strong in that regard anyway (no Log & Capture and no selective import a la Log & Transfer).
Yes, this means each editor has their own local Events and Projects and the metadata that goes with them, but that isn’t all that different than FCP7’s flat file projects that generally only one editor could work with at a time. You can easily copy and merge the Events around from bay to bay to get everyone on the same page with logged footage.
Certainly I want to see shared Events and Projects with permissions control, and there seems to be some hooks for something like that in the package. It would be a real shame if this architecture never went beyond where it is today.
Best,
Andy -
The best place way to get your feedback to Apple is with this form. They do read them. I’ve already put one in asking for pretty much the same feature, so the more who ask for it the better.
In the meantime, have you thought about making compound clips out of your audio? It might be a little cumbersome, but it would let you apply filters and effects to your audio in aggregate.
Best,
Andy -
[Marvin Holdman] ” It is NOT faster to create a DVD from this program. It is NOT faster to work with several formats (such as XDCAM) which requires re-wrapping prior to use. It is NOT faster to archive your projects once complete. It is NOT faster to learn if you are coming from the most common editing applications (unless you know iMovie). It is NOT faster to share between multiple users on multiple machines. “
Slower at spitting out a DVD compared to what? It isn’t an authoring tool (RIP DVDSP), but you can churn out a screener of a project with just a few clicks.
Slower at XDCAM than Premiere or Avid perhaps, but FCP7 required a rewrap, did it not?
Slower to learn, yes, but I think Jerry means it is fast to operate and get through the editing process once you know the software. Less time spent maneuvering clips around the timeline and no waiting for rendering that locks you away from doing other work in the app.
Slower to share? FCPX is at least as fast for sharing projects with other editors as FCP7, often faster and with less opportunity for error. Plug in drive. Copy Project to drive from inside FCPX and check the box to include Events with media. Hand drive to other guy. He plugs in and goes. If the other editor already has a copy of the Event for that project, you can just hand over the project file.
Simple, and at least as fast and less error prone than FCP7’s Media Manager. You can follow a similar procedure for archiving. Or are you referring to the missing support for shared storage (which is often overstated, the only thing you can’t do with shared storage is put Events and Projects there- media can certainly be linked from shared storage)?
Best,
Andy -
[Craig Seeman] “Hmm, that might mean features were locked down by February.”
My hunch is the beta was more to inform what comes after 10.0 than what came in 10.0. If we see XML support before September it isn’t because they started working on it June 21st.
Best,
Andy -
[Marvin Holdman] “I really do appreciate and need the insights of those opinions. Thank you for taking the time to respond in a pleasant helpful manner, Andy.”
Right back atcha! It is nice to discuss this stuff without the flame wars we had so much of the last few weeks.
Best,
Andy -
[Dan Hayes] “Can you give some details about your beta test experience? How long did it last, was there any back and forth communication between yourself and Apple about missing features, etc.”
It ran from the Cupertino briefing in February till launch (that’s when I got the official word the program had concluded). We were able to submit feedback, but only when I submitted a bug did I get a response asking for more detail. I did not get any replies for my feature requests, though one of them is slated to be added per the FAQ. It wasn’t a conversation, at least not for my part. Perhaps others in the group had a different experience.
Best,
Andy -
[Marvin Holdman] “Now, it seems, Apple has decided to re-define how software companies develop products for the professional market. It occurs to me that the “paradigm” that has shifted has little to do with timelines, metadata or any other particular editing function, but everything to do with who a product is initially designed for.”
If you want to see the best returns on your software development investment sooner, this is the right way to go. Then it is a lot easier to make the business case to develop up to the higher end since you sold so much to everyone else. Apple has been very successful selling the iPhone and iPad into corporate settings with entrenched Windows IT environments; capture the consumer first and business will follow. Now I would still tend to defend the idea that you can make a certain kind of living with FCPX today, though certainly not in as many ways as FCP7.
[Marvin Holdman] “I’ve seen many comparisons of FCPX to the first version of FCP. In trying to decide what the biggest difference in those two were, it occurred to me that the first version of FCP was specifically designed for professionals. It was meant to compete with high end NLE’s and used primarily by facilities to do business. … Frankly, the state of consumer camera technology just wasn’t there, even if it were affordable.”
FCP1 was DV25 only, and was aimed squarely at the prosumer up-and-coming entry-level market. For years the high end looked down its collective nose. Not till FCP4 and onward did the high-visibility pro work start getting done on FCP with any kind of regularity. Cold Mountain and Scrubs were the exception, not the rule.
[Marvin Holdman] “Just means, if this works that way Apple thinks it may, we’re going to get flooded. I’m not saying this is bad either. As the tide rises, all the boats float. “
Does DaVinci Resolve 8 for free threaten the high-end colorists? This isn’t just Apple’s bet. Everyone, including Adobe and Avid, has a lower-end product designed to bring in the new users and hook them on the platform. Apple eschewed the top end for now, but the guts are there in FCPX for them (and others?) to add most of it back in. How much and how long remain to be seen, but perhaps with the much more robust underpinnings in FCPX, the features that used to take years to surface will now take a lot less time. I certainly hope so, I’d hate to see all that potential wasted.
[Marvin Holdman] “Will this ever be able to be used the way FCP7 was?”
If you’re asking if FCPX will abandon the Magnetic Timeline and the unified window, then no. If you’re asking if FCPX will ever be used to cut major episodic TV, a studio feature, or a marquis national ad campaign, I’d say yes it will. Apple would have to cease all development and never add another feature to FCPX to keep it from one day soon being used to do those types of things.
[Marvin Holdman] “How might this product fit into a professional workflow?”
When there is XML interchange for FCPX, there will be very few professional workflows that will be out of reach.
[Marvin Holdman] “What type of user base is this going to create?”
A much bigger one.
[Marvin Holdman] “What level of integration should I think about including this new product?”
Right now we have no idea how much integrative potential there is. We need to see what the forthcoming API will permit.
[Marvin Holdman] “What specific things am I now looking for to define what type of company Apple will become?”
Look for Apple to do more and more to tie their various product lines together in ways that make it compelling to own multiple Apple products per user. iCloud is a step in that direction.
[Marvin Holdman] “Am I going to continue to use Apple products as anything more than an “integration” console for media received from casual users?”
That’s up to you, but ignoring FCP altogether, you still have Media Composer, Adobe CS, Smoke, and Resolve all supporting the Mac. Even if you never edit in FCPX, you might wind up owning it just to do what you described. Then again, you might see a compelling reason to edit with it and feature it in your workflow by version 10.1, 10.2, or 10.3.
[Marvin Holdman] “I think the paradigm HAS changed, just not the editing paradigm. What changed is how editing software is developed by Apple. They have decided that video editing software should be targeting the wider consumer market first, and THEN the professional market…. if there is any interest.”
Nailed it.
[Marvin Holdman] “Sadly, this removes one of the main reason’s that I’ve always loved their product; the fact that the hardware, OS and application are built by one company. That was the strongest persuasion that any mid-level manager had in making a case for this company.”
I’ve felt the same way, but if you look back at all the times QuickTime updates unrelated to FCP broke FCP, how often OS X updates broke QuickTIme and/or FCP, you see there never really was that single-vendor benefit for FCP. But it was a nice canard for convincing the uninitiated upper management that might otherwise only listen to market share figures when picking technology solutions. Now those uninitiated upper managers might take some convincing to believe that FCPX isn’t the best way to go! Being out of touch is a side effect of getting paid the big bucks.
[Marvin Holdman] “What I think is absolutely poor form is the fact that they didn’t have the courtesy to tell their loyal customers that they’ve lost interest in them. They have put many, many hard working devoted users in an erroneous position by spending the last years telling them how “awesome” this is going to be, only to pull the rug out from under them by EOL’ing a product entire segments of the industry were built upon. They implied they were building a better FCP only to deliver something completely different, with no road forward for current users.”
Agree wholeheartedly. Bait and switch all the way. I was in the beta for FCPX and forgave the missing features because I convinced myself they’d keep FCP7 out there for a while to cover the transition based on how they handled OS 9 to OS X, PPC to Intel, and even iMovie HD to iMovie ’08. They really did pull the rug out from under everyone who makes a living with FCP and its associated ecosystem (my bread and butter the past few years was Final Cut Server).
That’s why FCPX is bittersweet for me. I like where they are going with their new ideas, but to earn me back as more than a hopeful FCP futurist, they’ll need to make good on all the promise that I see in FCPX today. If by the end of 2012, FCPX isn’t already eclipsing FCP7 in every way (except VTR I/O, that is gone forever) it’ll really be too bad.
[Marvin Holdman] ” I used to give a sigh of relief when a prospect told me their primary platform was Apple. Soon, I’m afraid, I will cringe when I hear this.”
I think conflating OS X into this FCPX imbroglio is a mistake. A few creatives might switch to Windows over this, but I don’t see any reason to believe there will be any mass exodus from OS X among the creative pros who use it today. Again, Media Composer, Adobe CS, Smoke, and Resolve all have a home on OS X. Now, if they turn the Mac Pro on its ear later this year by removing all PCI slots in favor of Thunderbolt before Thunderbolt has a critical mass of equipment on the market, that might be another story…
Best,
Andy -
[John Pale] “There’s a lot of room to the right and left of the dashboard TC display for more info….its just that they decided it wasn’t important, I guess”
Not every desired feature can make a 1.0. There is a lot of room for a lot of improvement all over FCPX. I hope they deliver on it’s potential.
Best,
Andy -
There also isn’t any way to set starting timecode for the timeline. They need to add that too. It would also be nice to have the big timecode floating window back.
Best,
Andy -
[Chris Harlan] “Here’s a call to FCP X evangelists–do any of you see more evolved audio mixing features that will be able to coexist with the magnetic timeline, or is it an either/or situation?”
Apple noted in their FAQ that they will add a feature for metadata tagging of audio for export. I hope this means there will be a quick and straightforward method for tagging audio and then a means for associating particular tags with particular export tracks.
So for instance, instead of patching a hard track in the timeline to a particular output channel, you’d point all the audio tagged as “dialog” to A1 and A2 and all the clips tagged “NAT” to A3 and A4 and clips tagged “music” to A5 and A6. Or whatever channel layout you want. This way the magnetic timeline can do its thing, automatically sliding collisions out of the way while preserving the channel output layouts the editor prescribed.
I’ve also put in a Feedback asking them to take this a step further, adding a sort of “view” for the timeline that would collapse all the audio clips into compound clips that represent each output channel. This would permit master mixing of output channels and clear visualization of the track outputs for QC. Who knows if they’d take that suggestion, but I think it would be pretty cool and would address many of the complaints associated with not having hard tracks in a timeline that was designed not to have hard tracks.
Best,
Andy